+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 50

Thread: What sample rate?

  1. #21
    Join Date: May 2016

    Location: Notts

    Posts: 2,335
    I'm Geoff.

    Default

    i am puzzled by those who write off the benefits of high definition files and upsampling. Regarding the latter, consider a vinyl pressing. It is not possible to add more data to the grooves once it is pressed. However, one can extract more of the data in the grooves by improving the replay chain. A better RIAA device, superior cartridge, more rigid tonearm, better power supply, more highly engineered bearings etc. The same is true of redbook files. I find that a system that can perform a good upsampling of redbook files typically sounds "better" (to me at least) than one that does not. I find a similar improvement in files that have been recorded in hd. If others don't perceive the same improvements that is fine.

  2. #22
    Join Date: Feb 2010

    Location: Berkshire, UK

    Posts: 4,151
    I'm Tom.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherwood View Post
    i am puzzled by those who write off the benefits of high definition files and upsampling. Regarding the latter, consider a vinyl pressing. It is not possible to add more data to the grooves once it is pressed. However, one can extract more of the data in the grooves by improving the replay chain. A better RIAA device, superior cartridge, more rigid tonearm, better power supply, more highly engineered bearings etc. The same is true of redbook files. I find that a system that can perform a good upsampling of redbook files typically sounds "better" (to me at least) than one that does not. I find a similar improvement in files that have been recorded in hd. If others don't perceive the same improvements that is fine.
    That's my point though. A file recorded, mastered and distributed at hi-res (where this is actually some additional resolution, in theory anyway) is or at least ought to be a completely different animal to a lower res file upsampled. Whatever your kit is doing to process the signal may be the important thing here in why you like it, not the initial (or indeed the upsampled) resolution. Great if you like it but there's no proof whatsoever that a file being hi-res is responsible for why you like it.
    Main: Speakers 'RFC' Tannoy Canterburys / custom crossovers with Tannoy ST50 supertweeters; Amp - Silvercore 833C monoblocks; preamp TBA watch this space; Vinyl: Schopper'd Thorens TD124 MkII + Ikeda IT345-CR1 9 inch and Ikeda IT-407 12 inch tonearms; Cartridges Stereo - Miyajima Madake, Miyajima Takumi, Ikeda 9TT, vintage Ortofon SPU GM and SPU Gold; Mono - Miyajimas - Zero 0.7, Premium 1.0, Miyajima/Edison '78' 4.0 conical, and Shure M44 strapped for mono with several Expert Stylus conicals for different eras of 78s; Phono stage Allnic H7000V used with Miyajima ETR-Mono and ETR-Stereo SUTs; Digital: Audio Note CDT2/II transport, heavily enhanced AN DAC based on kit but aspiring to DAC5 spec.

    Study: Speakers - Tannoy DC6; Amp: Marantz PM-4; Digital: CDP Sony CDP-X3000ES & Arcam rBlink; Vinyl: Garrard 401 with AT 1503 MkI broadcast arm, Ortofon SPU Classic GM, Ortofon 2-15k SUT and Puresound Tenuto platter mat

  3. #23
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 26,463
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherwood View Post
    i am puzzled by those who write off the benefits of high definition files and upsampling. Regarding the latter, consider a vinyl pressing. It is not possible to add more data to the grooves once it is pressed. However, one can extract more of the data in the grooves by improving the replay chain. A better RIAA device, superior cartridge, more rigid tonearm, better power supply, more highly engineered bearings etc. The same is true of redbook files. I find that a system that can perform a good upsampling of redbook files typically sounds "better" (to me at least) than one that does not. I find a similar improvement in files that have been recorded in hd. If others don't perceive the same improvements that is fine.
    There's no data in the groove of a vinyl record though, it's just a groove. Man.

    I was an early adopter of SACD. Initially I thought it was the second coming. With the hybrid discs I was puzzled that the CD layer and SACD layer sounded no different. Then I found out.

    Also had one of the upsampling players. Didn't like it, sounded a bit blousey, thought the upsampling was to blame. With CD you could not switch off the upsampling. But it could be used as a stand alone DAC too so I hooked up a transport and could switch between 16/44.1 and 24/384 at will with the remote. Not a scrap of difference.

    Not to say that up sampling will not make a difference sometimes. Depends on all sorts of things. Lots of variables involved.
    Current Lash Up:

    *Sony SCD XB790QS* Nelson Pass DCB1 / Krell KSA100 mkII * JM Lab Electra 926 *


    'You fool! To think that your ape-brain could contain the full knowledge of the Krell!'

  4. #24
    Join Date: Mar 2017

    Location: London N2

    Posts: 1,741
    I'm Edward.

    Default

    I find this article helps keep me on track regarding high resolution audio.
    Main: Tidal/Roon > MiniITX > Metrum Hex > LDR > either Radford STA25 V or Trilogy 968 > Tannoy (Eaton or Berkeley).
    2nd: Tidal/Roon > Roopio on Pi > Chevron Paradox > Firebottle Buffer > Sugden Masterclass IA-4 > Kudos Cardea


  5. #25
    Join Date: Feb 2013

    Location: W Lothian

    Posts: 61,503
    I'm Grant.

    Default

    It doesn't always help, but it can.
    Like most things that are complicated,... It's complicated.
    Regards,
    Grant .... ؠ

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply-doesn't-work
    .... ..... ...... ...... ................... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
    OPPO BDP-103D - JBE SERIES 3/B&O SP1/PROJECT PHONOBOX DS2 USB - QUAD VENA 2 - IFI PURIFIER 2/TWIN PRO MONOBLOCK POWER AMPLIFIERS - LEAF HD BLUETOOTH - OPPO PM-3 PLANAR, SONY H900 & NURAPHONE HEADPHONES - ZBOOK/ IFI SILENCER/WIN10 PRO/AUDIRVANA & JRIVER - SMSL M6 DAC & IFI SILENCER - RPI 3+, DIGIONE HAT/VOLUMIO2 - EDINGDALE MK1 SPEAKERS - CABLE INC CHORD, MOGAMI, SUPRA & WIREWORLD

    **Men are not punished for their sins, but by them**Don't be such a big girl's blouse!**
    ***SMILE, BE HAPPY***

  6. #26
    Join Date: Feb 2010

    Location: Berkshire, UK

    Posts: 4,151
    I'm Tom.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edward View Post
    I find this article helps keep me on track regarding high resolution audio.
    Thanks Edward I'd read that before but I'll bookmark it this time.
    Main: Speakers 'RFC' Tannoy Canterburys / custom crossovers with Tannoy ST50 supertweeters; Amp - Silvercore 833C monoblocks; preamp TBA watch this space; Vinyl: Schopper'd Thorens TD124 MkII + Ikeda IT345-CR1 9 inch and Ikeda IT-407 12 inch tonearms; Cartridges Stereo - Miyajima Madake, Miyajima Takumi, Ikeda 9TT, vintage Ortofon SPU GM and SPU Gold; Mono - Miyajimas - Zero 0.7, Premium 1.0, Miyajima/Edison '78' 4.0 conical, and Shure M44 strapped for mono with several Expert Stylus conicals for different eras of 78s; Phono stage Allnic H7000V used with Miyajima ETR-Mono and ETR-Stereo SUTs; Digital: Audio Note CDT2/II transport, heavily enhanced AN DAC based on kit but aspiring to DAC5 spec.

    Study: Speakers - Tannoy DC6; Amp: Marantz PM-4; Digital: CDP Sony CDP-X3000ES & Arcam rBlink; Vinyl: Garrard 401 with AT 1503 MkI broadcast arm, Ortofon SPU Classic GM, Ortofon 2-15k SUT and Puresound Tenuto platter mat

  7. #27
    Join Date: Mar 2009

    Location: South West-ish, UK

    Posts: 298
    I'm Patrick.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherwood View Post
    If we are being pedantic it is both as you are making comparisons between audio and video (analogy def: a comparison between things that have similar features, often used to help explain a principle or idea)
    Sorry but you are incorrect; it's an example of sampling something with a frequency lower than half the highest frequency that you are sampling, which produces aliasing. It's not an analogy because I am not making a comparison between things that have similar features, I am giving an example of the phenomenon (aliasing).

    Anyway, now you fully understand aliasing, it's job done AFAIAC.

  8. #28
    Join Date: May 2016

    Location: Notts

    Posts: 2,335
    I'm Geoff.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Dixon View Post
    Sorry but you are incorrect; it's an example of sampling something with a frequency lower than half the highest frequency that you are sampling, which produces aliasing. It's not an analogy because I am not making a comparison between things that have similar features, I am giving an example of the phenomenon (aliasing).

    Anyway, now you fully understand aliasing, it's job done AFAIAC.
    You have the definition: if you can't grasp it then that's fine.

  9. #29
    Join Date: Dec 2014

    Location: UK, East Midlands

    Posts: 1,541
    I'm Mike.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Dixon View Post
    Sorry but you are incorrect; it's an example of sampling something with a frequency lower than half the highest frequency that you are sampling, which produces aliasing. It's not an analogy because I am not making a comparison between things that have similar features, I am giving an example of the phenomenon (aliasing).
    .
    Actually Geoff was absolutely correct - the comparison you made was an analogy (by its very definition...).

    The phenomenon of the 'wagon wheel' rotation and film projection (not video) has very little to do with digital 'aliasing' other than both being related to frequency differences that produce an undesirable effect; thus wholly analogous.

    The two effects are not even remotely connected either technologically or in their underlying physics.

  10. #30
    Join Date: Oct 2008

    Location: Glasgowshire

    Posts: 7,489
    I'm availableforweddingsAndBarmitzvas.

    Default

    The important bit (in my opinion...having dabbled with digital a bit) is the bit depth, not the sample rate.
    A 24bit 44Khz version of a song has always sounded noticeably better than even a 352Khz 16 bit up-sample of the same track.

    Bit depth is what matters...
    Last edited by Gazjam; 03-11-2019 at 10:12.
    I enjoy Hifi n stuff...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •